Equality?

[SadisticNature]

All three questions are matters of life and death. I see no difference between them.


I agree these are complicated questions. Yes, a person should be treated for any life-threatening injuries at the nearest hospital. That does not mean he should be given a private room, or given every test known to man just for the sake of running them. Basic care, yes. Save their lives. Treat their broken bones. Help people, without question.

Have you ever been in an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night? Count the number of people there with minor problems, such as colds or sore feet or just headaches. Count the numbers of real emergencies, and compare the two. You'll find the freeloaders generally far outweigh the critical patients, almost every time.

You don't run to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles, or bruise a finger. Yet we are building a culture in this country that does just that, and people will sue anyone who won't provide them with the best care someone else's money can buy.

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

[Thorne]

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

So are you proposing that all accused people should be provided the very best lawyer someone else's money can buy?

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

That's not what I said! I have stated clearly that we are all entitled to basic rights. The problem seems to be in defining just what is basic and what is extravagant.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

The problem is that the ways to fix this problem could be viewed by some as denying those people their basic human rights. The system we have now requires publicly funded hospitals to treat the indigent and the poor. It is the privately owned hospitals which turn them away. That won't change regardless of what kind of health care reform gets passed.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

[SadisticNature]

That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

[Thorne]

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

No, the solution is to minimize the control the government has over our lives. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of the government keeping my medical records, deciding which doctor it's all right for me to see, deciding which treatment plan is best for me. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling me what I must buy, for my "own good".

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

I concede that governments have their uses, especially when acting as a buffer between states, or between nations. But the US government has intruded too deeply into individual lives, to the point where almost every aspect of our lives is impacted in some way by the federal government. That's not how it was meant to be, and I don't think it's good to be that way now.

[steelish]

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

[SadisticNature]

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?

[steelish]

If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?

Not in Florida.

[DuncanONeil]

I live in a state that requires car insurance, which recently raised the levels of coverage, yet four out of the last five times my car was hit the other driver did not have insurance!
So that is a very bad analogy!

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

[steelish]

I live in a state that requires car insurance, which recently raised the levels of coverage, yet four out of the last five times my car was hit the other driver did not have insurance!
So that is a very bad analogy!

Sorry, it was not meant as an analogy, merely a statement of fact. That's the way things are in Florida. Each state is different...

[SadisticNature]

No, the solution is to minimize the control the government has over our lives. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of the government keeping my medical records, deciding which doctor it's all right for me to see, deciding which treatment plan is best for me. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling me what I must buy, for my "own good".

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

I concede that governments have their uses, especially when acting as a buffer between states, or between nations. But the US government has intruded too deeply into individual lives, to the point where almost every aspect of our lives is impacted in some way by the federal government. That's not how it was meant to be, and I don't think it's good to be that way now.

And where exactly does one draw the line of "laws should prevent the screwing over of innocents", which appears to be your justification for the liability insurance requirement in SC.

Is it screwing over of innocents to deny life saving care? And if people are legally obligated by the government to provide services, should they not be compensated by said organization for those services? If so, if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?

[Thorne]

And where exactly does one draw the line of "laws should prevent the screwing over of innocents", which appears to be your justification for the liability insurance requirement in SC.

I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?

if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?

But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

[SadisticNature]

I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?


But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

You can't lose your car unless you have used it as colateral on a loan.

You can't lose a house unless it is involved in a loan.

So by anything you have you actually mean 'Assets not protected under the law'. And those assets are generally rather limited.

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

As to the legitimacy of that argument, if you think anything violating small government is bad you'll never be convinced. I will point out the countries with the smallest governments and no income taxes are among the worst off in the world. I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break. It's worked well since the 80's after all there isn't this authoritarian regime called China threatening to overtake the US as a superpower in the next 20 years.

[DuncanONeil]

Health care is not a basic right. Life is! That is why US hospitals are not permitted to turn people in need of life sustaining care away. No one in the US is denied ESSENTIAL medical care.
The larger issue of treatment is not always of cost, or efficacy, but youth. Don't want to pay for a treatment that is new on the scene. Have to prove it works first!
Aside from that hospitals deny care all the time based on triage.

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?